« A few of you owe Kevin Apologies | Main | In Excess »

Debunking the "Taxcuts for the Rich" Myth

From the DNC NY Times

Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy

WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 - Fully one-third [see note 1 below -ed] of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be published Friday.

The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings - averaging about $57,000 a year - were getting an average cut of only $1,090.

How on earth can someone making $57,000 a year expect a $78,460 tax cut?

According to the new report from the Congressional Budget Office, about two-thirds [see note 2 below -ed] of the benefits from the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, went to households in the top fifth of earnings, with an average income of $203,740.

Here's another Newsflash NYT- The people who pay more taxes benefit more when taxes are cut.

REALITY CHECK
Tax Burden Distribution
The top 1% pays 33.89% of all income taxes
The top 5% pays 53.25%
The top 10% pays 64.89%
The top 25% pays 82.9%
The top 50% pays 96.03%
The bottom 50% pays a mere 3.97% of income taxes.

Note 1: Why did one third of the tax break go to the wealthiest 1%? DUH! They pay one third the taxes- How hard is it?!?

Note 2: Why did two thirds of the tax break go to that top 20%? Could it be that they pay two thirds of all taxes? Astonishing, I know.

Income Distribution
The top 1% earns 17.53 of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.99.
The top 10% earns 43.11%
The top 25% earns 65.23%,
Top 50% earns 86.19% of all income.

Source: IRS

UPDATE Below the fold

Apparently my dry wit was lost on some of my commentors when I said: "How on earth can someone making $57,000 a year expect a $78,460 tax cut?"

Go back and look at the story. It is classic class warfare. They say:

"Big fat cat gets XXXXX dollars back while little Joe six-pack ONLY got back XX dollars. COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that fat cat's tax break is actually greater than the whole of little guy's income. How on earth could their tax cuts look the same? Clearly fat cat pays more in taxes than little guy makes!

Of course the guy making 1.2 million a year gets a bigger break than a guy making 52,000, that is obvious. The Times pretends this is some great economic injustice when it is simple math.

Ray got my point. Sorry, if I lost some of you.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Debunking the "Taxcuts for the Rich" Myth:

» voices.in.my.head linked with Wizbang: Debunking the

» Sha Ka Ree linked with CBO Report

» Physics Geek linked with Tax cut myths debunked

» The Encyclopeteia linked with NYT: Blatant Propaganda Machine

» e-Claire linked with Humbug-Seas Life Preserver [updated]

» In Search of Utopia linked with Losing my Cool....

Comments (37)

"How on earth can someone m... (Below threshold)

"How on earth can someone making $57,000 a year expect a $78,460 tax cut?"

Thats easy. You just qualify em for the Earned Income Credit. ;)

Why is it so hard for peopl... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Why is it so hard for people to realize this? And why is this some sort of shocking news? Could it be that people at the NYT and other liberal media outlets favor a more agressive tax scheme that promotes wealth distribution??? Sure seems like it.

I dont even pretend to unde... (Below threshold)

I dont even pretend to understand the tax codes. Nor am I am economist. I am a small business person who currently lives in a foriegn country. For me the overriding issue with the tax cuts is a simple one. When Bush was running for office he talked about being an MBA President and running the country like a business. If I ran my business with Huge deficits I would soon be out of business. I am not questioning the sincerity of his campaign promise. It is possible that he IS running the country like a business, since records seem to point out that his record as a CEO was pretty bad.

Paul,Good post, whic... (Below threshold)

Paul,
Good post, which I sent out to my various Stanford Listserves. However, I think you made a mistake though on the "How on earth can someone making $57,000 a year expect a $78,460 tax cut?" line. The $78K tax cut was the average for the wealthiest one percent. On the other hand the article says those making $57K or the would only get a $1K tax cut. I think you might be confusin

When Bush was running fo... (Below threshold)
Paul:

When Bush was running for office he talked about being an MBA President and running the country like a business. If I ran my business with Huge deficits I would soon be out of business.

David that is potentially the most moronic thing you have ever posted.

Businesses in a CAPITALISTIC system borrow all the time. What do you think the bond market is??? It is companies (and municipalities) borrowing money from private people. Sometimes for decades!

Amazon.com ran without a profit for years, now they make big bucks. Borrowing money when times are lean happens in every business.

I know you feel you have to stand up and make the left-wing point or mankind may perish without your efforts but MAN try to make sense.

When you make a post this moronic it does not make your side look better. Instead people say "Another Democrat who has no clue how business works." Rather than instill trust, it confirms their worst nightmares.

Think man, think.

Nope- No confusion on my pa... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Nope- No confusion on my part Elliot.

Read it again/ see ray's comment.

The NYT is whining about a mathematical impossibility not happening.

Oh, and one other thing. I ... (Below threshold)

Oh, and one other thing. I guess all the conservatives in Congress who are upset about the rising deficits need a refresher course on Economics and capitalism as well? I am grateful that you dont speak for ALL conservatives, cause if you did, I would not think very highly of the philosophy at all. As it is, I share some conservative positions, If you read my Blog you would probably know that.

How on earth can someone... (Below threshold)

How on earth can someone making $57,000 a year expect a $78,460 tax cut?

I don't understand what you are talkin about. there seems a clear delineation:

Category 1: Incomes in the top 1%
The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year


then we see the word "while," which indicates a contradictory or comparative clause ...

Category 2: Middle 20%
while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings - averaging about $57,000 a year - were getting an average cut of only $1,090.

I do not understand how the NYT is whining about a mathematical impossiblility. It clearly states that the incomes in the top 1% receive tax cuts that average $78,460.

In contrast, they are complaining that the middle 20% of earners, which average about $57,000 a year, are getting an average tax cut of only $1,090.

What is this mathematical impossibility you are talking about? The NYT isn't making the point that earners with incomes of $57,000 should or could save $78,460, rather they are making the point that the rich contribute a vastly larger sum of money (in real, gross dollars) to the economy than those in the middle 20%, and that a disproprtionate amount of relief goes to top wage earners that don't NEED the money.

They are simply highlighting the disparity in real dollars. There are arguments that one could make against this use of stats, but talking about a mythical mathematical impossibility isn't one of them.

Bill, I'll put up an update... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Bill, I'll put up an update... I *thought* it was clear. maybe not.

OK Update done, but more to... (Below threshold)
Paul:

OK Update done, but more to your last point Bill-

The Times had a headline- in effect they make a claim the story must prove. Then they start citing evidence...

-----
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 - Fully one-third [see note 1 below -ed] of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be published Friday.

[I debunked this easily]

The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings - averaging about $57,000 a year - were getting an average cut of only $1,090.
------

The last part is to convince the reader the wealthy get a disproportionate share of the tax breaks. To this you say:

The NYT isn't making the point that earners with incomes of $57,000 should or could save $78,460, rather they are making the point that the rich contribute a vastly larger sum of money

I personally reject that argument.

The Times has not made the point that the "rich contribute a vastly larger sum of money" quite the contrary, they simply toss the numbers out there to prove their thesis that the rich are getting a disproportionate share of the tax break. In effect, they ARE implying the little guy should get the same dollar tax break as the big guy.

Riddle me this: If that was not their point, why then did they make the comparison? They are highlighting a supposed inequity.

David - you bore me. Say so... (Below threshold)
Paul:

David - you bore me. Say something intelligent and I will engage you... otherwise it is a waste of effort.

It would seem that a better... (Below threshold)
Pilgrim:

It would seem that a better way to compare these two groups is to compare how much there taxes paid has fallen since the tax cut. What percentage decrease is 78,460 from their pervious average? What percentage decrease is is 1,090 from their previous average? To the extent these percentages are different that is the place where the argument about fairness should begin. I favor the flat tax where every taxpayer shares the burden proportionally to his relative wealth.

Pilgrim gets it.... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Pilgrim gets it.

I think Ray is just trying ... (Below threshold)
Kirk:

I think Ray is just trying to be funny.

The maximum EIC is $4,204 which is for a household with two or more kids earning less that $33,692. So, first of all, someone making $57,000 a year would never qualify for the EIC, and secondly, even if they did somehow qualify, the wouldn't get anywhere near $78,460 for it.

The premise of this whole thread is flawed. There are nothing but facts in the NYT article, and both sides are fairly represented.

What I think galls conservatives is the fact that, mathematically, our Federal tax code is progressive. No doubt about it, the wealthier members of society pay a higher proportion of their earnings in tax. But this is right and smart, a moderated meritocracy. We don't want the tax code to create a vast number of poor in our society (even from a purely economic perspective this leads to serious problems). But this is what would happen if everyone had to pay an equal share of their income in taxes.

I would also maintain that the richer members of society benefit MORE from government spending that poorer ones, so for that reason as well they should pay a larger share of their income in tax. If you have to ask how the rich benefit more from their tax dollars, then you really have lost touch with reality. But I suppose there are some of you out there, so let me spell it out: the government is run at the behest of corporate interests, that is, the interests of business leaders, investors, and people who by accident of their birth were lucky enough to have a stable lifestyle, the time and money to get an education, and the opportunity to become successful. If and when we have a society in which all members have the same opportunities, then we can have a uniform tax rate for all income levels.

The best analogy that I hav... (Below threshold)
bender:

The best analogy that I have ever heard, which should clear up any "confusion" and to be honest, should be an arguement you cant argue against is as follows:

Pretend you and 10 of your friends all put cash in to rent out a bar and throw a party. You all went in not knowing how much it was going to cost. You all contributed what you could.

Mike, the banker, put in 700 dollars.
John, who is a waiter - but still a darn fine dude - put in 50 dollars.

Everyone else put in some amount in between.

they collected 2600 dollars in the end, rented the bar, threw the party.

At the end of the night, they only spent 1800 of that 2600 dollars.

So, now they have 800 dollars to give back - unspent funds and all.

Would it make ANY sense to split this up evenly, and hand everyone back 80 dollars? Absolutely not. If you dont get it now, you are hopeless.

I took the comment as a sat... (Below threshold)
dario:

I took the comment as a satirical rebuttle to the emphasis in the article on dollar amounts. The NYT even goes so far as to use the adverb "only" to place even more focus on the disparity.

They are in essence saying that 78,000 dollar tax cut is so vast that it's unfair to those that only get $1000. The satircal response highlights the absurd premis of the arguement. I read the post after the corrections so maybe I'm missing the whole point anyway. Which for me, is par for the course.

Bill said, "a disproprtiona... (Below threshold)
Meezer:

Bill said, "a disproprtionate amount of relief goes to top wage earners that don't NEED the money."
So what?
It's THEIR money. Not a gift from Uncle Sam. And when I get a tax cut (I'll take that $1,000, thank you very much) it's my money coming BACK to ME.
Do you NEED every single thing you own, Bill?
'Cause if you don't, sounds like you need to donate to someone else who NEEDS it, to be consistant in your philosophy.

Thanks Kirk! I had no idea... (Below threshold)
dario:

Thanks Kirk! I had no idea I had been lucky enough to have been born in to a stable lifestyle! I was thinking the single mother, low income, share a room and clothes with your siblings was the norm growing up. Until now I looked back on my childhood with some pride and with little regret. Now I feel the guilt and shame of my silver spoon.

My beginnings are down right royalty compared to say, Dr. Rice. I've GOT to get one of these corporations so I can run the government and gleam the benefit of greater tax contribution. This is a revelation.

I'm not concerned directly ... (Below threshold)
Peter:

I'm not concerned directly with how much the rich are paying now, or then, I'm glad of my little tax cut. Indirectly it only makes sense that someone making ten times the monery that I make would get a tax cut ten times bigger than mine and I'm GLAD they did. I'm not a bum sleeping on a park bench but I'm by no means wealthy. Honest people don't normally become wealthy on a policeman's paycheck. Thing is, nobody is asking me for a job.
Men and women like me don't create jobs, we do them. The wealthy do create jobs, directly or indirectly. They either grow their own businesses or they invest in other's businesses, allowing them to grow.
My little tax cut bought two sets of tires, one for each of our cars and paid for half our vacation this year. Good for the economy. My wealthy neighbor's tax cut hired a machinist and a horse wrangler. (he owns a machine shop and a hobby horse ranch) Better for the economy.
Oddly, that machinist he hired put him over the tipping point where he had to hire another entry level guy to clean up around the shop. If past history is any guide, the new cleanup guy will start learning how to do simple things with the saws, maybe a little stuff on the grinders and, in a few years will be a skilled Class B Machinist, going for Journeyman.
I like tax cuts for the rich, ever ask a poor guy for a job?

Dario- You're alright!... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Dario- You're alright!

Here's some very simple mat... (Below threshold)
m jones:

Here's some very simple math.

The top 1% earn $1,200,000 on average.
They received $78,460 in cuts on average.

Therefore, they received a tax cut equal to 6.54% of their income.

The middle 20% earn $57,000 on average.
They recieved $1,900 in tax cuts on average.

Therefore, they received a tax cut equal to 1.91% of their income.

6.54% is 3.4 times greater than 1.91%.

Therefore, relative to annual income, the top 1% received a tax reduction 3.4 times larger than that received by the middle 20%.

None of this saying that the wealthy bare any less of the tax burden than they actually do. It is simply not part of the equation. If you would like to state that it is your belief that a tax cut that benefits the wealthy more than the middle class is appropriate and justified due to the fact that the current code places an inordinate burden on the wealthy, then simply do so. However, stating that this tax cut does not benefit the wealthy more so than the middle class is simply false.

You say that it is impossible to grant a $78,460 tax return to someone earning $57,000. That truly is ingenious, but it misses the point entirely. Surely, you don't contend that is impossible to grant a tax cut equal to 6.54% of $57,000 to someone earning that amount, which by the way would equal $3,727.80. If you did so, the tax cut would benefit the top 1% and the middle 20% equally, as it would refund an equal percentage of thier income. The most recent tax cut does not do so, as I have clearly indicated.

Again, if you believe the tax codes should be rewritten so that the wealthy pay a smaller portion, and others' burdens are increase, that is fine. The article did not address this issue, though. It addressed these particular tax cuts, and who they favor. The tax code may not favor the wealthy, but this cut does. It's really very simple.

Heavy Heavy Sigh<i... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Heavy Heavy Sigh

Therefore, relative to annual income, the top 1% received a tax reduction 3.4 times larger than that received by the middle 20%.

But they PAY 3.4 times you. DUH! You really have to try to miss that point.

You know for someone who claims it is so simple you have a really hard time understanding it.

I BORE YOU? LMAO! Thats a g... (Below threshold)
David Anderson:

I BORE YOU? LMAO! Thats a great response Paul. But let me straighten one thing out for you. I never asked you to engage me in anything, since such engagement would require you to have something meaningful to say, which other than lets see, idiot, moonbat, moron, is about all you seem to know how to say when someone dissagrees with you. My advice, keep preaching to the choir and leave intelligent debate to some like Kevin or JT, who seem wholly capable of it, including swaying my point of view on some issues. But then again that is not so hard when the conversation is rational and based on mutual respect rather than ranting and baying at the moon when someone happens to dissagree.
There are very few things I agree with you on, but I have always shown you respect, even when you went on one of your insulting rants, today is not the day, I have a sick baby and other issues to deal with and I am not in the mood for someone sitting behind a computer to insult me becuase he is hiding behind a computer. And by the way, before you say, see David you can call people names too... I am not, I am simply stating fact. Anyone in my opinion is an *#$* who cant defend their position WIN or LOSE without insulting people that they dont even know. Chew on that for a minute if you have enough bandwidth left over from all the cerebral cycles it takes for you to spew so much anger and hatred at people you dont even know.

Oh and now you ban my domai... (Below threshold)
David Anderson:

Oh and now you ban my domain from commenting because I defend myself when you call me a moron? That is real adult Paul. I have never trolled Wizbang, and wont now. If my comments arent welcome. That is fine. I thought Wizbang was above deleting comments and banning people for dissagreeing with you.

Again, Paul, you are addres... (Below threshold)
m jones:

Again, Paul, you are addressing the tax code, not the tax cuts. If you have a problem with the code, that is very nice, but not salient to the question of whether this cut favors the wealthy. You are incorrect to day that they pay 3.4 times as much(it is much higher than that), that is entirley irrelavant, however.

If you believe that the current system places too high a burden on the wealthy, and agree that this cut helps to rectify that situation, then you are stating your belief that this cut helps the wealthy more than the middle class. You may not understand it, but that is also irrelavant.

You seem to be incapable of seperating the topics of whether the tax code is fair and whether this particular tax cut, in and of itself, benefits the wealthy to a greater degree than it benefits the middle class.

Again, Paul, you are add... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Again, Paul, you are addressing the tax code, not the tax cuts

Um- at the risk of asking the obvious- Where do the tax cuts come from if not the tax code?

Let's review....

The top 1% pays 33.89 (one third) of the taxes.

The top 1% gets one-third of the tax break.


It really is that simple. Here's another one for ya... People who don't pay taxes got a 0% tax reduction. (The horrors!)

You can try to spin it with meaningless noise all day but can't avoid the facts.

The reason the rich got a bigger break is that they pay more. You can listen to or even propagate the liberal spin all day long but the numbers don't support you.

David-Now I'm "hid... (Below threshold)
Paul:

David-

Now I'm "hiding behind a computer"?!?!?!

What- Ya wannta fight? LOL

Let's review- It's a blog. Logic dictates I'm gonna be on a computer.

I tried using my shoe to post my thoughts- then I tried a shovel. Neither were satisfactory so I went back to using the computer.

See- Calling people like you delusional is not name calling, it is an accurate description...

And I'm soooo glad I didn't detect and "anger and hatred" in your post... Nope- Not a bit.

Tell ya what- If you don't like the way I reply to you here's a thought- Don't reply to my posts. See it's easy.

MEEZER - Are you a... (Below threshold)

MEEZER -

Are you an idiot? My argument wasn't FAVORING that argument, it was EXPLAINING the angle that the WaPo and NYT were taking with their story. You probably shouldn't get into discussions on blogs if you're too damn stupid to tell the difference.


Paul -

re: I personally reject that argument.

I tentatively reject their argument as well, i was just clarifying what it was. Your statement in the post was confusing in that it seemed to suggest that they were making an argument that they weren't.

ALSO - beyond the argument that the NYT uses raw numbers and ignores the obvious fact that the top 1% naturally get a much higher break because they have MUCH higher incomes, The WaPo story is implying that the top 1% is INCREASING their share of the tax break.

In short, not merely getting a alrger check (as they would with an across the board tax break, but as I mentioned, it's making the tax rate LESS PROGRESSIVE.

Admittedly, it's a tiny percentage, but I believe that's what they are arguing.

You are addressing what per... (Below threshold)
m jones:

You are addressing what percentage of the tax cut went to the top 1%. This doesn't really help as we don't have the numbers in front of us where all of it went. For instance, what percentage of it went to the middle 20%? I don't know, those numbers aren't in front of us. The numbers I used showed two groups, how much they made, and how much they received in cuts. What those numbers evidenced is clear.

People who pay 0 do not receive a tax reduction of 0%, that is an incorrect statement. 0 divided by 0 does not equal 0, it equals DNE.

I'm well aware that the rich receive a larger numerical tax break because they make more, that is simply common sense. However, just because they make more does not mean they need to have their taxes reduced by a larger percentage of their annual income than the middle 20% does.

This has nothing to do with spin. I'm just looking at the numbers. You are the one attempting to put forth an agenda. I haven't even stated my opinion of the cuts.

Ah, on to your first question... Where do the tax cuts come from if not the tax code?

They come from Congress... they affect the code, they do not eminate from it.

This doesn't really help... (Below threshold)

This doesn't really help as we don't have the numbers in front of us where all of it went.

Sorry, you're right, I'm mixing up my blog
arguments. Here are the numbers from a WaPo article:

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.


Once again, my fault, thought Wizbang referenced the WaPo as well.

Paul:Out of respect ... (Below threshold)

Paul:
Out of respect for Kevin and my sick baby, I am done with this conversation.

Out of respect for your sic... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Out of respect for your sick baby???? LOL

Read your mail when I'm finished typing it. (I'm on about page 9 so get comfy)


Bill- No biggie- I'm actually preparing another post- might be tonight- some of have to work enough to get a bigger tax cut.

P

m jones:zero divided... (Below threshold)
Pete:

m jones:
zero divided by zero is most certainly not 1. It's an undefined number because things cannot be divided into zero parts, and if you divided zero things into zero groups and wound up with something (1) you'd throw years and years of math out the window.

Paul is correct. For those who pay no taxes, yet still receive income, they received 0% of their income back as a tax cut (the standard you claimed to be using).

But of that standard... why on earth would you compare the tax cut to total income? Why not compare it to previous tax outlay? Consider this.

Let's look at two people:

Person A
Income: $2,000,000
Old Taxes: $750,000
New Taxes: $450,000

Person B
Income: $50,000
Old Taxes: $10,000
New Taxes: $5,000

Person B got a 50% reduction in tax numerically, as a percentage of their income it was 10%. Person A, on the other hand, got a 15% break as a percentage of their income, but it was only 40% of their previous tax outlay.

This illustrates a flaw in reasoning. That flaw is as follows: when the tax RATE increases, it takes a much larger percentage of income to equate to a percentage of previous tax outlay. The numbers that you're citing are a direct result of our "progressive" tax system, NOT the tax cuts themselves.

The real tax burden is also... (Below threshold)

The real tax burden is also distorted by the incredibly complex and loophole-filled tax code.

Pete:I never claim... (Below threshold)
m jones:

Pete:

I never claimed 0 divided by 0 was 1. I claimed it was DNE(which is the same as undefined).

The reason I used the numbers that I did is because those are the numbers that we had available to us from this article. The types of numbers you use in your example are not available to us from the article in question, although I will cede that they would give an even more accurate perception (though not necessarily any different from what we've already seen).

All I know is, getting exci... (Below threshold)

All I know is, getting excited over how much or how little other people pay in taxes, is just plain silly -- yet for some reason it's almost an obsession with a lot of people.

Ridiculous. My wife and I have enough to concern ourselves with focusing on our own finances, thank y'all very much.

That's a good point McGeehe... (Below threshold)
m jones:

That's a good point McGeehee, it's important to have some perspective.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy